So now instead of starting to eat humble pie like evos should they are now scurrying around like that silly subby clutching at the last 20% that the researchers also suggest will be found to be functional with further research. Creos are being validiated and evos falsified and left to chase their tails, yet again and build evidences on staw men.

The entirety of this gobble about ervs and ancestry to chimps or anything else is just gibberish.

The fall is as much a philosophical assertion as your evolutionary one that suggests an entire sequence of any kind can cross the germ line, remain similar enough to be identified and despite being scrambled still resembles some retrovirus you have never seen.

It is gibberish and is not evidence for common ancestry to chimps at all, let alone the rest.

As for no evidence for Adam and Eve, you have got to be joking. There is numerous evidence for an Adam and Eve, it is just that evos are too ignorant to see it. Instead they get their algorithmic magic going, come up with data that supports creation and then say there must have been other human cohorts because evos say so based on a priori assumption.

You have found Adam and Eve but have used algorithmic magic full of unknown insertion values to get dates that suit your paradigm.

Creos, at least, could make a prediction on ervs. The rest is entorely speculative on both sides, hence the terms likely, maybe and perhaps that riddles evo papers. Evos said functionless ervs 'prove' evolution and that TOE predicts functionless non coding dna, including ervs and shoved them all down creos throats. It is evos that are being proven to have been wrong. Now the backtracking and stories begins all over again.

If you want to call this gobble evidence, then it is an evidence based on faith, and you are welcome to it. I'd rather believe in the power of a God than these evos that can't make up their mind about anything and handwave away evidence for creation with any ridiculous scenario evos can make up. eg ancient ervs.

<quoted text>What is it with you Subby? I have already said that Phoenix was a major con job. To add to their fraud they took an erv that is 'new' and only found in humans. Here look below!"Researchers could not isolate a functioning, infectious HERV-K virus from human samples to study its possible function, though.Thierry Heidmann at France's Institute Gustave-Roussy in Villejuif and his colleagues made an end run around this obstacle by comparing 30 different HERV-K sequences. For each position in their final sequence they assigned the nucleotide base that was most common among the 30 originals at that position, according to a paper published online October 31 in Genome Research. They called the final virus product "Phoenix."http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...This is the kind of fraudulent misrepresentation creationists have come to expect from evolutionists. They did nor resurrect anything. What they did was build a virus themselves from sequences based on what they thought it should look like, and then used this circular reasoning as evidence for resurrection and infective capacity of a Human ERV that is 'recent'.What is more likely is that reverse transcribe has no way of incorporating an entire genomic sequence across the germ line, let alone into population fixation, without fatality.What is more likely is that these sequence were present in the initially created Adam and Eve as some immunity of other function. This resulted in the formation of retrovirus and a drop in mankinds inability to defer old age and disease as per the fall.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15237223Although this genetic material, you call ervs, remains functional they do not impart the same protection and longevity that they once did.If evolutionary researchers started to conduct their research based on more accurate assumptions they would do heaps better and they might actually find cures and genetic therapies that work.

After reading the linked article, I see that once again Maz shows her ignorance of science and bias against science in misrepresenting the research that she references. The used retroviral sequences to construct this HERV. This was done to use in studying the possible role in some cancers. In otherwords, they designed a tool for use in further studies of retroviruses and cancer. It would offer insight into evolution, but I saw no claim that this was being used to show evolution and the development was not the result of any circular thinking.

Is YEC so weak that the followers have to resort to lies, misrepresentation and fraud to support their case. Sadly, yes they do.

<quoted text>Yes, I have more than once. Old ERV's would have more mutations than a new one. Species close to us would have very similar ERV's to us. In that I mean that any one specific ERV at that shared the same site in each species would be similar to each other, where a species that we had a more distant relation to would have a greatly changed ERV. I don't think anyone has done the research of comparing actual ERV's from species to species yet, I cannot find an example of it at any rate. It IS predicted by the TOE. What they did to resurrect Phoenix fit the idea that even a new ERV would have evolved and corrections would have to be made for that evolution.Poor Maz, forever without a clue and all she can do is to flap her waffle.

Old ervs would have more mutations compared to what? Answer: A retrovirus evos have never seen and can only speculate on. That is a fact. Refute it if you can, and with peer reviewed research.

You do understand that evos have NEVER OBSERVED this endogenization, don't you? All the waffle on reverse transcriptase and any retrovirus ability to endogenize is a fabricated computer model.

How many times do you need to read the research to SEE that Pheonix was reconstituted based on speculation that it is viral?

Now this Fankenstein Phoenix gobble is used to inform other research. If this is not quacking without substance nothing ever will be, including anything a creo has to say.

<quoted text>I'm quite aware of what a metaphor is, of course many of the books I read have metaphors in them, but none of those books, no matter how much I like them, no matter how much I'd like others to read them warrants me starting a cult around them and foisting it upon others as christians and others have done, as the dude pointed out you seem to feel atheism must be at the heart of evolution and that is just not so,I was simply pointing out to someone like Knightmare who takes the bible literally that he can't have his cake and eat it too when it comes to debunking science (that was a metaphor btw)if it's academic ability that you're so concerned about then please learn to differentiate between facts and fiction, many of the links you post are.....I'll be nice here......dubious at best...

Well I'm not a bible literalist

From what I see in the forums, it seems like evolutionists don't want to accept that a God exists, even if it had a role in evolution. So yeah I'm assuming they're using TOE as a weapon to antagonize believers. Because atheism has their own agenda.

<quoted text>The universe, the solar system, the earth all existed prior to the existence of mathematics. Mathematics is a human construct. Humans came later. Fact.

So there was never logic involved with with the universe and solar system? There was no thinking or life. Seasons and time and amounts weren't there to observe? People(believers) always associate the gospel with math when they say One sacrifice paid for Everyone's debt to prove that miracles happen that don't appear mathmatically achieveable without supernatural power.

Im back guys! what if the universe is just a giant living organism and our galaxy is just a cell and we're all parts of the processes inside of a little cell, aand although we think we exhibit freewill, really we are doing what we are programed to do in our little part of the cell to help it function and keep the giant creature alive? any thoughts?

I mean it explains why the universe keeps growing, living organisms grow, big bang, potential birth through a giant black hole umbilical cord from a different "Mother" universe? much like we cant explain what happens below the atomic level, perhaps we cant explain what happens beyond a certain larger scope because we are just the sub atomic part of a larger organism!

To DudeSo now instead of starting to eat humble pie like evos should they are now scurrying around like that silly subby clutching at the last 20% that the researchers also suggest will be found to be functional with further research. Creos are being validiated and evos falsified and left to chase their tails, yet again and build evidences on staw men.The entirety of this gobble about ervs and ancestry to chimps or anything else is just gibberish.The fall is as much a philosophical assertion as your evolutionary one that suggests an entire sequence of any kind can cross the germ line, remain similar enough to be identified and despite being scrambled still resembles some retrovirus you have never seen.It is gibberish and is not evidence for common ancestry to chimps at all, let alone the rest.As for no evidence for Adam and Eve, you have got to be joking. There is numerous evidence for an Adam and Eve, it is just that evos are too ignorant to see it. Instead they get their algorithmic magic going, come up with data that supports creation and then say there must have been other human cohorts because evos say so based on a priori assumption.Furthermore, Olson and his colleagues have found that if you go back a little farther — about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago — everybody living today has exactly the same set of ancestors.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201908,00...http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-t...You have found Adam and Eve but have used algorithmic magic full of unknown insertion values to get dates that suit your paradigm.Creos, at least, could make a prediction on ervs. The rest is entorely speculative on both sides, hence the terms likely, maybe and perhaps that riddles evo papers. Evos said functionless ervs 'prove' evolution and that TOE predicts functionless non coding dna, including ervs and shoved them all down creos throats. It is evos that are being proven to have been wrong. Now the backtracking and stories begins all over again.If you want to call this gobble evidence, then it is an evidence based on faith, and you are welcome to it. I'd rather believe in the power of a God than these evos that can't make up their mind about anything and handwave away evidence for creation with any ridiculous scenario evos can make up. eg ancient ervs.

<quoted text>The universe, the solar system, the earth all existed prior to the existence of mathematics. Mathematics is a human construct. Humans came later. Fact.

Wow. How many times do I have to explain to you because you don't seem to follow what I'm trying to say.

Math is a universal language. We invented language to interpret our reality - the earth, the sun, the solar system. Here's an example. If there was no formula for gravity, how else would we explain its existence? Poetry?(Even that has math)

But again, you see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear. Sounds like music to my ears!

<quoted text>Evidence please.'ARTIFICIALLY' is the operative word here. IOW they put together according to their speculation and use that as evidence. It is actually gibberish based on maths that cannot possibly take the entire complexity of the genome into account.It is the fact of it all being gibberish that leads to the ever changing evo flavours of the month.<quoted text>That is not an appropriate reply. Mutations across the germ line are majorly deleterious. You evos now rely on some computer model to speculate that an entire viral sequence crossed the germ line and fixed over time, got scrambled further by mutation and then is supposed to look like some retrovirus that is extinct and unknown. That is the basis of your pseudo science. It is not rare if evos are also trying to suggest it happended 200,000 times, or is that also a misrepresentation?

Mav, quit flapping your waffle, we can smell it all the way over here. "ARTIFICIALLY" is not the key word. Once again, the TOE makes predictions that the entire genome would have evolved, not just parts of it. To counter that they broke down the genes and tried to find which genes (and remember though the ERV would have evolved too odds are against all genes having been changed) were the most common for each section. It only makes sense according to the TOE that those genes were most likely to be the original ones that the ERV had. And what backs up this claim? The fact that the ERV WORKED! as a virus again. According to blue waffled flappers the viruses are not viruses at all and nothing that they could have done in the lab would have made a virus.

You are in a no win situation for yourself here. Either they did reconstitute an ERV or they developed an entirely new form of life. Both are impossible according to creatards.

<quoted text>After reading the linked article, I see that once again Maz shows her ignorance of science and bias against science in misrepresenting the research that she references. The used retroviral sequences to construct this HERV. This was done to use in studying the possible role in some cancers. In otherwords, they designed a tool for use in further studies of retroviruses and cancer. It would offer insight into evolution, but I saw no claim that this was being used to show evolution and the development was not the result of any circular thinking.Is YEC so weak that the followers have to resort to lies, misrepresentation and fraud to support their case. Sadly, yes they do.

I have not misrepresnented anything. It does not matter what the research was used for you fool, it is about the construct of Phoenix in so far as this ressurection is concerned.

"For each position in their final sequence they assigned the nucleotide base that was most common among the 30 originals at that position, according to a paper published online October 31 in Genome Research"

The above means it was reconstructed and NOT resurrected, and the recon was based on an assumption of what a priori has faith in. I am not even sure if it was a real infection or a simulated one!

You cannot refute that because that is exactly what these researchers have done. Get it? Or is that too difficult for you?

I also have the MRCA dated to around 5-7K years ago that you speculate had cohorts but cannot prove at all.

HERVs are implicated in aging as well as a host of other functions and I therefore have no more 'likely, possibly and maybes' in my scenarios than you evos appear to have no problem with.

Im back guys! what if the universe is just a giant living organism and our galaxy is just a cell and we're all parts of the processes inside of a little cell, aand although we think we exhibit freewill, really we are doing what we are programed to do in our little part of the cell to help it function and keep the giant creature alive? any thoughts?I mean it explains why the universe keeps growing, living organisms grow, big bang, potential birth through a giant black hole umbilical cord from a different "Mother" universe? much like we cant explain what happens below the atomic level, perhaps we cant explain what happens beyond a certain larger scope because we are just the sub atomic part of a larger organism!And we all hold galaxies in our cells in our atoms!Or god exsists, i duonno man.

I used to think that way LOL. I thought we are like red blood cells in (perhaps) God's veins and arteries. And with how we're behaving I think he might have a heart attack soon!

<quoted text>Old ervs would have more mutations compared to what? Answer: A retrovirus evos have never seen and can only speculate on. That is a fact. Refute it if you can, and with peer reviewed research.You do understand that evos have NEVER OBSERVED this endogenization, don't you? All the waffle on reverse transcriptase and any retrovirus ability to endogenize is a fabricated computer model.How many times do you need to read the research to SEE that Pheonix was reconstituted based on speculation that it is viral?Now this Fankenstein Phoenix gobble is used to inform other research. If this is not quacking without substance nothing ever will be, including anything a creo has to say.

Was it not laid out clearly enough for you?

All old ERV's would have mutations. The number of differences would be dependent upon where you are in the tree of life. Two critters very closely related, like man and chimp, would have a relatively low number of differences. The difference in mutations would be much greater between man and mouse or chimp and mouse.

And no, Phoenix was not reformed based upon viral speculation. It was reformed based upon deduction, not speculation, from the TOE.

It is so freaking obvious that the article did not see any reason why they had to enter that fact. I guess they did not think about creatards that might read that article.

<quoted text>Well I'm not a bible literalistFrom what I see in the forums, it seems like evolutionists don't want to accept that a God exists, even if it had a role in evolution. So yeah I'm assuming they're using TOE as a weapon to antagonize believers. Because atheism has their own agenda.

I think if you look more closely, you will see that creationist go out of their way to characterise people that accept the theory of evolution as atheist or against Christianity. Many of the science minded folks may have personal beliefs in God or a creator, they just recognize that such can not be proven. It is in the interest of the creationist/Biblical literalist to paint science, scientist and science oriented as atheistic because their real arguments are weak.

<quoted text>Well I'm not a bible literalistFrom what I see in the forums, it seems like evolutionists don't want to accept that a God exists, even if it had a role in evolution. So yeah I'm assuming they're using TOE as a weapon to antagonize believers. Because atheism has their own agenda.

and what's wrong with accepting that a god doesn't exist, what difference should that make to someone like you who claims to be non-secular, why is that even a question in this day and age???There are evolutionary scientists of faith and those that are not, much like in life, most of the atheist agenda revolves about the freedom to Not worship, and not be dictatated too by those that do, isn't that a right that they deserve??

<quoted text>I think if you look more closely, you will see that creationist go out of their way to characterise people that accept the theory of evolution as atheist or against Christianity. Many of the science minded folks may have personal beliefs in God or a creator, they just recognize that such can not be proven. It is in the interest of the creationist/Biblical literalist to paint science, scientist and science oriented as atheistic because their real arguments are weak.

I haven't seen one here who's a theist evolutionist.

Even if I didn't follow Christian beliefs, I won't be too adamant to say that God does not exist as what most hostile evos here do.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.